jAZ's recent thread (expressing his thinly veiled hope for failure in Iraq IMO) brings this question to mind. As it turns out, according to a study from a Harvard economist (http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/iraq/2008/03/12/are-iraqi-insurgents-emboldened-by-antiwar-reporting.html), anti-war reporting does indeed generate an emboldenment effect. It's not a huge effect, but it's statistically significant. When reports suggestive of the idea that American resolve is waning are in the media, insurgent attacks increase.

The paper "Is There an 'Emboldenment' Effect in Iraq? Evidence From the Insurgency in Iraq" concludes the following:

In the short term, there is a small but measurable cost to open public debate in the form of higher attacks against Iraqi and American targets.

In periods immediately after a spike in "antiresolve" statements in the American media, the level of insurgent attacks increases between 7 and 10 percent.

Insurgent organizations are strategic actors, meaning that whatever their motivations, religious or ideological, they will respond to incentives and disincentives.

Of course, there are all kinds of unresolved questions with this study as there are with any study. Unresolved questions like whether the insurgents are just rescheduling attacks that would happen anyway to take advantage of perceived vulnerability to US resolve instead of increasing the overall number of attacks. But there appears to be little doubt that insurgents derive encouragement from this kind of reporting and try to leverage it to their advantage.

jAZ

03-25-2008, 09:34 AM

Only propaganda is permitted in patteeu's world, it seems.

jAZ

03-25-2008, 09:39 AM

Seriously though...

We have to live with the consequences of reporting of negative reality that will cause an ultimately unhelpful impact on that reality. The solution to that is to demand good judgement by our leadership to avoid such intractable situations in the first place.

Like electing someone who would have had the good judgement to appoint Colin Powell Sec of Defense (or VP) rather than Cheney/Rumsfeld. The Powell doctrine would have made this war a much greater success from day one.

pikesome

03-25-2008, 09:43 AM

Seriously though...

We have to live with the consequences of reporting of negative reality that will cause an ultimately unhelpful impact on that reality. The solution to that is to demand good judgement by our leadership to avoid such intractable situations in the first place.

Like electing someone who would have had the good judgement to appoint Colin Powell Sec of Defense (or VP) rather than Cheney/Rumsfeld. The Powell doctrine would have made this war a much greater success from day one.

One could make a real good case Powell shares some of the blame. Saddam should have been dead in 1991.

Chiefnj2

03-25-2008, 09:47 AM

All those insurgents spend all day on the net surfing ChiefsPlanet looking for negative reporting.

Radar Chief

03-25-2008, 09:59 AM

Only propaganda is permitted in patteeu's world, it seems.

:LOL: The irony here is thick.

keg in kc

03-25-2008, 10:06 AM

I guess that's the price we pay for that damned inconvenient first amendment.

Radar Chief

03-25-2008, 10:11 AM

I guess thatís the price we pay when individuals place political expedience above all else.

FYP.

patteeu

03-25-2008, 10:15 AM

Seriously though...

We have to live with the consequences of reporting of negative reality that will cause an ultimately unhelpful impact on that reality. The solution to that is to demand good judgement by our leadership to avoid such intractable situations in the first place.

Like electing someone who would have had the good judgement to appoint Colin Powell Sec of Defense (or VP) rather than Cheney/Rumsfeld. The Powell doctrine would have made this war a much greater success from day one.

Cheney was almost universally respected among democrats before he became a central target of political demonization sometime after 9/11.

Regarding his nomination as SecDef:

Support for the nomination was enthusiastic and bipartisan. Democrats who would years later count themselves as Cheney's most outspoken detractors urged his confirmation. [Carl] Levin, who would become a relentless critic of Cheney more than a decade later, was the first senator to call to report Cheney's nomination favorably to the Senate. Senator Al Gore congratulated President Bush for his choice, and Ted Kennedy declared simply: "America's defense policy is back on track."

He was confirmed on Friday, March 17, 1989, on a vote of 92-0

And regarding his selection as the Republican VP candidate in 2000, while democrats took shots at Cheney's more-conservative-than-Bush voting record, they often prefaced it with praise:

In Washington, the Senate minority leader, Tom Daschle, allowed that Cheney "clearly has a lot of experience" and "is generally well liked," before labeling him "as far right as anybody in the Republican Party today." Martin Frost, a Democrat from Texas, followed the same rhetorical pattern, calling Cheney "a man of integrity," but warning that the selection "raises some troubling questions about what a Bush administration would mean for working families in Texas."

In his speech announcing the selection, President Bush pointed out, "Even my opponent, [Al Gore], once said, 'Dick Cheney is a good man who is well-liked and respected by his colleagues," and I agree."

Non-conservative journalists were impressed too. When Cheney was nominated as SecDef, David Broder said, "Though he is a conservative by conviction and a staunch partisan Republican, he is admired by dozens of Democratic colleagues." And we all remember the word that journalists used repeatedly to describe Cheney when he became Gov. Bush's running mate: "Gravitas".

All quotes above came from Stephen Hayes' book, Cheney: The Untold Story of America's Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President (http://www.amazon.com/Cheney-Americas-Powerful-Controversial-President/dp/0060723467/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206461709&sr=8-1).

dirk digler

03-25-2008, 10:17 AM

Interesting question patteeu and I believe there is some truth to that. But the 1st amendment is one of our most important rights so this question is moot unless you believe that the media should only report positive stories.

jAZ

03-25-2008, 10:18 AM

FYP.

You mean political expedience like Rumsfeld pushing Tommy Franks to use a Rummy's plan calling for disaterously low levels (70,000) of troops so as to permit political support for the idea of invading Iraq to begin with... even at the cost of being massively unprepared for post-invasion needs?

patteeu

03-25-2008, 10:19 AM

I guess that's the price we pay for that damned inconvenient first amendment.

This is true, and that point is made by the study authors. It's just something to keep in mind when you see the way some people and organizations seemingly only recognize news from Iraq if it is bad news from Iraq.

pikesome

03-25-2008, 10:20 AM

Interesting question patteeu and I believe there is some truth to that. But the 1st amendment is one of our most important rights so this question is moot unless you believe that the media should only report positive stories.

You're right but it'd be nice if "the media" seemed to give a shit. They teeth-gnash over naming accusers in rape cases but seem to love reporting on military plans and policy. That line from Radar Chief's post seems to apply to the media all too often also.

jAZ

03-25-2008, 10:21 AM

Cheney was almost universally respected among democrats before he became a central target of political demonization sometime after 9/11.
Bush had the opportunity to undo the mistake of picking Cheney/Rumsfeld once it became clear that they were crazy. Instead he disempowered the one sane person in the room and gave Cheney/Rummy ridiculous authority.

That's what happens when you elect a figure head as President, I guess.

patteeu

03-25-2008, 10:22 AM

Interesting question patteeu and I believe there is some truth to that. But the 1st amendment is one of our most important rights so this question is moot unless you believe that the media should only report positive stories.

The 1st amendment is an inalienable right, not an imperative to blurt out whatever comes to mind. Sometimes a little self-restraint can go a long way. That's not to suggest that all bad news should be whitewashed, it's just to suggest that balance is a friend of truth and if you must err on one side or the other of balance, you should try to avoid erring on the side of being a detriment to your country and to those people fighting on your behalf.

jAZ

03-25-2008, 10:23 AM

This is true, and that point is made by the study authors. It's just something to keep in mind when you see the way some people and organizations seemingly only recognize news from Iraq if it is bad news from Iraq.
It's really not all that helpful a discussion because it demonizes those reporting politically unhelpful information. That's a disasterous thing for democracy.

patteeu

03-25-2008, 10:23 AM

Bush had the opportunity to undo the mistake of picking Cheney/Rumsfeld once it became clear that they were crazy. Instead he disempowered the one sane person in the room and gave Cheney/Rummy ridiculous authority.

That's what happens when you elect a figure head as President, I guess.

Obviously, I think you're nuts.

beer bacon

03-25-2008, 10:25 AM

I think we should just blame everyone except the people actually making the decisions.

patteeu

03-25-2008, 10:26 AM

It's really not all that helpful a discussion because it demonizes those reporting politically unhelpful information. That's a disasterous thing for democracy.

Nonsense. And it's deceptive to call anti-war reporting "politically unhelpful". IMO, one of the main motivations of anti-war reporting is to be politically helpful.

patteeu

03-25-2008, 10:26 AM

I think we should just blame everyone except the people actually making the decisions.

You mean the editors?

Radar Chief

03-25-2008, 10:30 AM

You mean political expedience like Rumsfeld pushing Tommy Franks to use a Rummy's plan calling for disaterously low levels (70,000) of troops so as to permit political support for the idea of invading Iraq to begin with... even at the cost of being massively unprepared for post-invasion needs?

No, I meant more like attempting to create an illusion that youíre privy to some form of inside information that would lead one to think this is the absolute truth.

jAZ

03-25-2008, 10:30 AM

The 1st amendment is an inalienable right, not an imperative to blurt out whatever comes to mind. Sometimes a little self-restraint can go a long way. That's not to suggest that all bad news should be whitewashed, it's just to suggest that balance is a friend of truth and if you must err on one side or the other of balance, you should try to avoid erring on the side of being a detriment to your country and to those people fighting on your behalf.
Assume for the sake of argument, that the success of the surge is based on a politically expedient pay-for-loyalty arrangement that isn't being spoken of much... And that that arrangement is a time-bomb waiting to explode. And that the "truth" is that the situation in Iraq is far more tenous than elected officials want the public to believe because there is an election coming up and reality would hurt relection. And that if we withdrawl troops by the end of 2009, we would avoid 3000 more dead soldiers by 2012.

Assuming that that is the objective "reality"... it would seem that erring on the side of reporting that side of the story would in fact be "avoid(ing) erring on the side of being a detriment to your country" as you demand.

Radar Chief

03-25-2008, 10:31 AM

Bush had the opportunity to undo the mistake of picking Cheney/Rumsfeld once it became clear that they were crazy. Instead he disempowered the one sane person in the room and gave Cheney/Rummy ridiculous authority.

That's what happens when you elect a figure head as President, I guess.

Like I posted, "thick with irony".

dirk digler

03-25-2008, 10:31 AM

You're right but it'd be nice if "the media" seemed to give a shit. They teeth-gnash over naming accusers in rape cases but seem to love reporting on military plans and policy. That line from Radar Chief's post seems to apply to the media all too often also.

The 1st amendment is an inalienable right, not an imperative to blurt out whatever comes to mind. Sometimes a little self-restraint can go a long way. That's not to suggest that all bad news should be whitewashed, it's just to suggest that balance is a friend of truth and if you must err on one side or the other of balance, you should try to avoid erring on the side of being a detriment to your country and to those people fighting on your behalf.

I agree that they should be more balanced in their stories but the media has significantly changed even from 4-5 years ago where the Internet and 24-hour cable networks dominate and where people get their news almost instantaneously.

Also let's be honest with the new media it is all about advertisements and dollars and good stories don't drive that. As Don Henley sang about People love dirty laundry.

jAZ

03-25-2008, 10:31 AM

Nonsense. And it's deceptive to call anti-war reporting "politically unhelpful". IMO, one of the main motivations of anti-war reporting is to be politically helpful.
You keep using the word anti-war reporting. What exactly is that?

jAZ

03-25-2008, 10:35 AM

I agree that they should be more balanced in their stories...
The media shoudn't ever use the standard of "balance". It should use the standards "closest to the truth". And that goes the same for negative stories that politically hurt policies I support. The truth is the only meaningful standard in good journalism. "Balance" is a meaningful standard WRT to ratings and profit... not journalism.

Adept Havelock

03-25-2008, 10:37 AM

You keep using the word anti-war reporting. What exactly is that?

You saw Peter Pan as a child. Clap louder, and everything will be fine. Tinkerbell will live, the Sunni and the Shiite will set aside a thousand years of bad blood, Iraqi oil revenues will pay for the occupation, and we will be greeted as liberators. Just clap louder.

Radar Chief

03-25-2008, 10:38 AM

The media shoudn't ever use the standard of "balance". It should use the standards "closest to the truth". And that goes the same for negative stories that politically hurt policies I support. The truth is the only meaningful standard in good journalism. "Balance" is a meaningful standard WRT to ratings and profit... not journalism.

Ah, we agree here. :thumb:
All I want from the media is raw data, not editorialized versions of raw data.

dirk digler

03-25-2008, 10:40 AM

The media shoudn't ever use the standard of "balance". It should use the standards "closest to the truth". And that goes the same for negative stories that politically hurt policies I support. The truth is the only meaningful standard in good journalism. "Balance" is a meaningful standard WRT to ratings and profit... not journalism.

I agree and disagree Jaz. You have to admit that the media hardly ever has any positive stories coming out of Iraq that is what I mean by balance.

pikesome

03-25-2008, 10:40 AM

You saw Peter Pan as a child. Clap louder, and everything will be fine. Tinkerbell will live, the Sunni and the Shiite will set aside a thousand years of bad blood, Iraqi oil revenues will pay for the occupation, and we will be greeted as liberators. Just clap louder.

They same could be said for the "bring the troops home, everything will be fine once we're gone" idea too.

jAZ

03-25-2008, 10:47 AM

I agree and disagree Jaz. You have to admit that the media hardly ever has any positive stories coming out of Iraq that is what I mean by balance.

That's a result of a for-profit media. They put on what captures viewers. Cable news viewers don't watch to see heart-warming stories. They watch for the drama.

The system is flawed, but the solution isn't 'balance'.

jAZ

03-25-2008, 10:49 AM

They same could be said for the "bring the troops home, everything will be fine once we're gone" idea too.
We've tried their strategy for 5 years. It's time for a change of thinking.

patteeu

03-25-2008, 10:50 AM

Assume for the sake of argument, that the success of the surge is based on a politically expedient pay-for-loyalty arrangement that isn't being spoken of much... And that that arrangement is a time-bomb waiting to explode. And that the "truth" is that the situation in Iraq is far more tenous than elected officials want the public to believe because there is an election coming up and reality would hurt relection. And that if we withdrawl troops by the end of 2009, we would avoid 3000 more dead soldiers by 2012.

Assuming that that is the objective "reality"... it would seem that erring on the side of reporting that side of the story would in fact be "avoid(ing) erring on the side of being a detriment to your country" as you demand.

Isn't being spoken of much? Everyone knows about what you mischaracterize as a pay-for-loyalty arrangement. It's called economic assistance in less politically slanted reports.

jAZ

03-25-2008, 10:50 AM

Isn't being spoken of much? Everyone knows about what you mischaracterize as a pay-for-loyalty arrangement. It's called economic assistance in less politically slanted reports.

Just answer the question.

dirk digler

03-25-2008, 10:51 AM

That's a result of a for-profit media. They put on what captures viewers. Cable news viewers don't watch to see heart-warming stories. They watch for the drama.

The system is flawed, but the solution isn't 'balance'.

IMO it has to be part of the solution. They can report the truth on positive stories just as much as they can on negative stories.

I just find it interesting that for the last several months the media has been silent on Iraq but now that violence is on the up they are back to full blown hysteria again.

patteeu

03-25-2008, 10:52 AM

You keep using the word anti-war reporting. What exactly is that?

You'd have to check the study to see what it means in the context of the study results, but I'd suggest that reports that mischaracterize economic assistance as a "pay-for-loyalty arrangement" would qualify as far as I'm concerned.

Fat Elvis

03-25-2008, 10:52 AM

FYP.

Talk about irony....

dirk digler

03-25-2008, 10:53 AM

It's called economic assistance in less politically slanted reports.

LMAO

Economic assistance? LMAO It is called bribery.

A bribe - an act implying money or gift given that alters the behaviour of the person in ways not consistent with the duties of that person

patteeu

03-25-2008, 10:54 AM

The media shoudn't ever use the standard of "balance". It should use the standards "closest to the truth". And that goes the same for negative stories that politically hurt policies I support. The truth is the only meaningful standard in good journalism. "Balance" is a meaningful standard WRT to ratings and profit... not journalism.

I can't speak for dirk, but "balance" as I've used it in this thread, means "closest to the truth." The biased anti-war reporting that you favor doesn't really fit, IMO.

jAZ

03-25-2008, 10:55 AM

IMO it has to be part of the solution. They can report the truth on positive stories just as much as they can on negative stories.

I just find it interesting that for the last several months the media has been silent on Iraq but now that violence is on the up they are back to full blown hysteria again.

Balance is an outcome, not an input.

The system is flawed and drives sensational reporting. People get upset at the lack of balance, when the problem is really a system that forces sensationalism of any stripe.

jAZ

03-25-2008, 10:55 AM

I can't speak for dirk, but "balance" as I've used it in this thread, means "closest to the truth." The biased anti-war reporting that you favor doesn't really fit, IMO.

Yes, we all know your distorted POV.

Radar Chief

03-25-2008, 10:57 AM

Talk about irony....

Youíre allowed to, of course.

jAZ

03-25-2008, 10:58 AM

Just answer the question.

Guess I left off the question. So just address my point. Which is that you have picked a prefered outcome and declare that outcome to be the only thing that is in the best interest of America and our troops. But there is an alternate outcome that might arguably be that best interest. And the reporting shouldn't errr to your side just because it's your side.

dirk digler

03-25-2008, 11:01 AM

Balance is an outcome, not an input.

The system is flawed and drives sensational reporting. People get upset at the lack of balance, when the problem is really a system that forces sensationalism of any stripe.

Each news organization has it's own "system" they just choose not to run positive stories out of Iraq or anywhere for that matter.

'Hamas' Jenkins

03-25-2008, 11:01 AM

The central thrust behind patteeu's post is a quashing of dissent.

Don't object to the course of the war, even if you think it is going wrong, because that will increase the likelihood that we'll lose.

Thanks for the offer, but I'd rather not embrace a fascist approach

patteeu

03-25-2008, 11:13 AM

LMAO

Economic assistance? LMAO It is called bribery.

A bribe - an act implying money or gift given that alters the behaviour of the person in ways not consistent with the duties of that person

"...consistent with the duties of that person?" What duties are you talking about?

Mr. Laz

03-25-2008, 11:18 AM

yeah ...... it's the reporting that is the major influence for these guys.

a good newspaper article just makes them want to strap on a bomb and blow themselves up in the name of journalism.

pat whoring himself out for the GOP gets more shameless every day. :shake:

Messier

03-25-2008, 11:19 AM

I partially blame Adam Teicher for the Chiefs only winning four games last year.

patteeu

03-25-2008, 11:22 AM

Guess I left off the question. So just address my point. Which is that you have picked a prefered outcome and declare that outcome to be the only thing that is in the best interest of America and our troops. But there is an alternate outcome that might arguably be that best interest. And the reporting shouldn't errr to your side just because it's your side.

Our country went through a process of putting elected officials in place to determine what our national policy should be. I'm supportive of that process. I think dissent is fine, but responsibility in that dissent important too. IMO, the type and tenor of dissent ought to change once the decision is made to go to war. Our "politics to the death" mentality ought to stop at the water's edge. Exaggerating the challenges our country faces is not responsible dissent, IMO.

pikesome

03-25-2008, 11:23 AM

I'd think you could argue that "the bad guys" use the US media as fuel. That seems logical. But I'd think these same people would use whatever they could find. If CNN doesn't say things they like/are supportive, they'd make em up. It's not like Islamic terrorists are paragons of logic.

patteeu

03-25-2008, 11:28 AM

The central thrust behind patteeu's post is a quashing of dissent.

Don't object to the course of the war, even if you think it is going wrong, because that will increase the likelihood that we'll lose.

Thanks for the offer, but I'd rather not embrace a fascist approach

yeah ...... it's the reporting that is the major influence for these guys.

a good newspaper article just makes them want to strap on a bomb and blow themselves up in the name of journalism.

pat whoring himself out for the GOP gets more shameless every day. :shake:

Yeah, it's probably pretty hard to see that reporting you applaud has a measurably negative impact on the soldiers and innocent civilians you sometimes claim to care about.

Mr. Laz

03-25-2008, 11:28 AM

I partially blame Adam Teicher for the Chiefs only winning four games last year.ROFL:clap:

jAZ

03-25-2008, 11:28 AM

It strikes me as odd that patteeu is more concerned about how the media coverage of this war affects the actions of insurgents... but doesn't care about how the occupation of 150,000 Americans affect the actions of insurgents.

That says a lot about patteeu's headspace.

patteeu

03-25-2008, 11:29 AM

I'd think you could argue that "the bad guys" use the US media as fuel. That seems logical. But I'd think these same people would use whatever they could find. If CNN doesn't say things they like/are supportive, they'd make em up. It's not like Islamic terrorists are paragons of logic.

"...consistent with the duties of that person?" What duties are you talking about?

Killing? :shrug:

To suggest this is economic assistance is pure spin this is bribery or a pay off.

dirk digler

03-25-2008, 11:31 AM

I partially blame Adam Teicher for the Chiefs only winning four games last year.

Damn that Adam Teicher. If only he would write positive stories the Chiefs would win the SB!

LMAO

Mr. Laz

03-25-2008, 11:31 AM

Yeah, it's probably pretty hard to see that reporting you applaud has a measurably negative impact on the soldiers and innocent civilians you sometimes claim to care about.
you care so much about the soldiers that you want them to keep dying for your political gamesmanship.

you're pathetic

worse than pathetic .... you're a bad person.

patteeu

03-25-2008, 11:33 AM

It strikes me as odd that patteeu is more concerned about how the media coverage of this war affects the actions of insurgents... but doesn't care about how the occupation of 150,000 Americans affect the actions of insurgents.

That says a lot about patteeu's headspace.

I'm pretty optimistic about how 150,000 American troops are affecting the insurgents.

Link not safe for weak stomachs or insurgent sympathizers (http://www.worldproutassembly.org/images/haditha_more.jpg) Mangled corpse at the other end of the link.

jAZ

03-25-2008, 11:36 AM

I'm pretty optimistic about how 150,000 American troops are affecting the insurgents.

Link not safe for weak stomachs or insurgent sympathizers (http://www.worldproutassembly.org/images/haditha_more.jpg)

That says EVERYTHING anyone needs to know about you.

patteeu

03-25-2008, 11:36 AM

Killing? :shrug:

To suggest this is economic assistance is pure spin this is bribery or a pay off.

Why do they have a duty to kill? To whom do they owe this duty?

I suspect that most of them aren't much different than people everywhere. They have a duty to provide for their families and create the best environment they possibly can for their loved ones to make a life. At one point, they may have interpreted this duty in a way that led them to join the insurgency, but you're not giving me any reason to think that their decision to turn against al Qaeda and work with the Americans and the central Iraqi government isn't also a rational interpretation of that "duty".

I'm sure they do. That's why you don't see Osama walking on to a bus with a bomb. He finds someone else to do it.

patteeu

03-25-2008, 11:38 AM

That says EVERYTHING anyone needs to know about you.

You know what they say, a picture's worth a thousand words.

BTW, what happened to your respect for truth?

pikesome

03-25-2008, 11:38 AM

I partially blame Adam Teicher for the Chiefs only winning four games last year.

Gretz, definitely Gretz.

patteeu

03-25-2008, 11:38 AM

I'm sure they do. That's why you don't see Osama walking on to a bus with a bomb. He finds someone else to do it.

LMAO Good point.

jAZ

03-25-2008, 11:42 AM

You know what they say, a picture's worth a thousand words.

BTW, what happened to your respect for truth?

It's not that you linked to that photo. It's that you only see the troops impact in the terms of that photo. You can see the negative side effects of reporting, but you can't fathom the negative side effects of occupation.

pikesome

03-25-2008, 11:44 AM

LMAO Good point.

This is something I've been thinking about but I don't have fully formed yet. I'm not convinced the people at the top give a rat's ass about Islam, the Koran, any of that crap. They're the same kind of people who have used every philosophy, at one time or another, as a basis for gaining power and/or money.

dirk digler

03-25-2008, 11:47 AM

Why do they have a duty to kill? To whom do they owe this duty?

I suspect that most of them aren't much different than people everywhere. They have a duty to provide for their families and create the best environment they possibly can for their loved ones to make a life. At one point, they may have interpreted this duty in a way that led them to join the insurgency, but you're not giving me any reason to think that their decision to turn against al Qaeda and work with the Americans and the central Iraqi government isn't also a rational interpretation of that "duty".

We are paying off\bribing terrorists. By definition terrorists kill people. Now some of the people we are paying off are part of the insurgency and I am sure their duty is to protect their country or family from occupying forces.

Radar Chief

03-25-2008, 12:20 PM

Is anyone actually denying that anti-war reporting emboldens terrorists?
Of course it does, to deny it is to deny the evidence, and quite frankly common sense. The question then is, what do we do about it? Shut down the news agencies that donít peddle the party line? Not in my America, thanks.

Radar Chief

03-25-2008, 12:24 PM

This is something I've been thinking about but I don't have fully formed yet. I'm not convinced the people at the top give a rat's ass about Islam, the Koran, any of that crap. They're the same kind of people who have used every philosophy, at one time or another, as a basis for gaining power and/or money.

:thumb: You're on to it. Keep following that rabbit hole.

patteeu

03-25-2008, 12:33 PM

It's not that you linked to that photo. It's that you only see the troops impact in the terms of that photo. You can see the negative side effects of reporting, but you can't fathom the negative side effects of occupation.

You do enough seeing the negative in American action for the both of us.

Duck Dog

03-25-2008, 12:40 PM

The 1st amendment is an inalienable right, not an imperative to blurt out whatever comes to mind. Sometimes a little self-restraint can go a long way. That's not to suggest that all bad news should be whitewashed, it's just to suggest that balance is a friend of truth and if you must err on one side or the other of balance, you should try to avoid erring on the side of being a detriment to your country and to those people fighting on your behalf.

The fact that jiz would argue against this line of thinking is plenty evidence to suggest he isn't an American at heart. He's a self hating, American loathing, back stabbing imbecile.

patteeu

03-25-2008, 12:42 PM

This is something I've been thinking about but I don't have fully formed yet. I'm not convinced the people at the top give a rat's ass about Islam, the Koran, any of that crap. They're the same kind of people who have used every philosophy, at one time or another, as a basis for gaining power and/or money.

The authors of a couple of the books I've read on the subject, Michael Scheuer (Imperial Hubris) and Lawrence Wright (The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11) seem convinced that bin Laden and al Zawahiri are dedicated to jihad for truly religious reasons although their objectives (e.g. deciding to make the US the focus of jihad) seems to be, to some extent, a rationalization to facilitate their accumulation of power.

I would describe their core motivation as an attempt to shut off their society from the sinful influence of civilization and they want to take their fellow countrymen with them. Their enemies include everything from the western world, communism, and their fellow countrymen who want any part of the outside world. They focus on the US because it's easier to recruit against us now that communism has subsided. People like Zawahiri tried to recruit against the Egyptian government at first, but a combination of some level of sympathy for modernity and the fact that the Egyptian government didn't tolerate much dissent kept him from being very successful (although they did knock off Sadat). It's an insurgency against civilization, as Newt Gingrich has described it.

The Looming Tower (http://www.amazon.com/Looming-Tower-Al-Qaeda-Road-11/dp/037541486X), btw, is an outstanding book, IMO. It is essentially a history of jihad in general with a particular focus on al Qaeda and it's origins. It follows the lives of 4 men, bin Laden, al Zawahiri, Prince Turki al-Faisal, the head of Saudi intelligence, and John O'Neill, the FBI agent who was ironically killed on 9/11 after he retired and took a security job at the WTC, in order to tell the story.